Re: IPv6 address parsing for inet/cidr types (take II)

You guys can make any decision you like --- I am just glad we are
getting this done, and with IPv6 connections in 7.4, not having an IPv6
data type would have been an embarrassment.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > Michael Graff writes:
> >> One other poster suggested they should be two data types, which I half
> >> agree with. There are advantages of being able to use IPv4 or IPv6
> >> addresses in the same column, so I wouldn't have to have two tables
> >> for host <-> address mappings, for instance. I'm undecided on which
> >> is better, but so far I've used the inet with ipv4 and 6 data type
> >> once and found them useful under one data type.
>
> > Perhaps we can make "inet" take both and then define domains "inet4" and
> > "inet6" over it that only take one kind.
>
> I had originally felt strongly that there should be only one datatype
> ... but IIRC the thread Peter referred to convinced me that they should
> indeed be two types, or at least that there's a darn good argument for
> that viewpoint. Michael, have you reviewed the archives? I'd be
> interested to hear your take on that discussion.
>
> Single basic datatype plus two domains seems like a reasonable approach
> if we feel that both viewpoints have merit. But I wonder whether they
> both do ...
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
>

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073